mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Lefties keep pushing their fascist agenda that more than 2/3rds of Americans do not want.
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
Does the Left oppose guns and love racism to distract us from recognizing their intellectual inferiority?
- Thread starter Yo Daddy!!
- Start date
Werbung:
why would anyone care who you consider to be "god fearing amerian patriots"? lol.
you're a lying coward, so that's probably a good thing you dont like them
Boris Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2022
- Messages
- 14,990
No. You lying old turd. You said they grabbed guns.
Apologise or stay away.
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Here is some advice from God:why would anyone care who you consider to be "god fearing amerian patriots"? lol.
you're a lying coward, so that's probably a good thing you dont like them
Matthew 7
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? ...
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Worse, forced interactions with armed police against someone already perceived to be under stress can be deadly. In 2018, law enforcement officers in Maryland fatally shot a 61-year-old man while attempting to serve a red flag order at 5 a.m. The man's family said afterward, "he wasn’t dangerous just strongly opinionated."
Yes, lefties have grabbed some guns in the US and they want to grab more but they fear the wrath of the American voters if they try to push their fascist gun grabbing policies too far. Sadly, states have passed red flag gun laws in which an innocent American can have his guins seized by authorities based solely on the recommendation of an unnamed private citizen who wants the guns seized. That is wrong in so many ways. I recommend listening to Rep. Jim Jordan's statement in opposition to the unconstitutional law.
Federal 'Red Flag' Gun Seizure Bill Moving in Congress :: Guns.com 10-28-21
10/28/2021 02:02 AM | CHRIS EGER
FEDERAL 'RED FLAG' GUN SEIZURE BILL MOVING IN CONGRESS
The "Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act," allowing for gun seizures in all 50 states on scant due process grounds, squeaked out of a House committee on Wednesday.
The bill, H.R.2377, was introduced by Georgia Democrat Lucy McBath, who came to Congress backed by millions from anti-gun groups funded by Michael Bloomberg. Prior to heading to Capitol Hill, McBath worked as Faith and Outreach Leader for Moms Demand Action for a half-decade. She introduced the bill earlier this year immediately after attending a high-profile public event with gun control advocates and President Joe Biden at a Rose Garden announcement about such red flag laws.
With 114 fellow Dems signed on as co-sponsors, the partisan proposal was marked up this week by the House Judiciary Committee following a seven-hour hearing that ended in a predictable one-sided vote. It can now be taken up by the chamber as a whole, where a further up-vote would send it to the Senate.
The measure would allow police or family members to seek a court order from a federal judge in an ex parte proceeding – without the subject of the order present to defend themselves – to suspend the subject's gun rights for 14 days. The order could later be extended to 180 days. Besides authorizing the seizure of any firearms held by the subject, the ERPO would be entered in the FBI's NICS database used by the Brady Act background check system, barring FFLs from transferring a gun to the subject to an order.
However, those opposed to the process argue that the deck is stacked against gun owners who are the subject of an ERPO, who may have to go into debt to get their constitutionally-protected Second Amendment rights reinstated.
"When faced with legal bills that can easily amount to $10,000 for a hearing and the worst that can happen is their guns will be taken away, few people find that it makes sense to fight Red Flag laws," noted U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky, in an op-ed published against the bill. "Under Red Flag laws, initial firearms confiscations usually require just a 'reasonable suspicion.' Judges will initially confiscate a person’s guns on the basis of a written complaint. When hearings take place weeks or a month later, courts overturn a third of the initial orders. But since few defendants have legal representation, the actual error rate is undoubtedly much higher."
U.S. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, blasted the measure due to provisions that it would remove the gun rights of an individual who had not been accused of any crime, and in turn, had no mechanism to return seized firearms at the end of an ERPO.
"By depriving individuals of their property and rights without having been charged, arraigned, or convicted of a crime, this bill violates Constitutional due process rights set out in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment," said Jordan.
U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, during the hearing, decried the use of anti-gun laws to disenfranchise large swaths of the population, pointing to the racist roots of gun control in American history. Further, he addressed claims made by Democrats that the bill protects due process rights.
"You have the opportunity to be heard after – after – your rights have been taken away," he said. "That's the key issue here. We are absolutely destroying the bedrock principle that your rights are given to you by God, and that you can't just have to go to the government to ask permission to exercise those rights."
PROBLEMS WITH 'RED FLAGS'
Described as GVROs, such as in California, or Extreme Risk Protection Orders, ERPOs, at least 12 states, and the District of Columbia have passed some form of red flag law so far. In addition to McBath's bill, Dems from the White House to Congress are pushing for more states to do the same, backed with the carrot of federal dollars.
Pro-gun groups have stumped against such laws for years. Such organizations argue red flag orders have little impact on crime and instead force individuals to surrender legal firearms to law enforcement based on often uncorroborated statements. That then puts those gun owners into an expensive uphill fight to get their rights restored.
They also criticize the trend as a move to go after guns rather than potentially dangerous people, as the orders typically have no mandate for mental health evaluation tied to them.
“If you send police to confiscate someone’s firearms because he is considered to be a threat to himself or someone else,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told Guns.com previously, “but you leave that individual essentially on the loose, what’s to prevent that person from committing mayhem with a car or some other weapon?"
Gottlieb also contends that the orders could be used maliciously, saying, “Nobody should be subjected to such legal abuse, essentially being considered guilty until they prove themselves innocent, and in the meantime having their Second Amendment rights suspended or revoked.”
In Colorado, in 2019, the mother of a man killed in an officer-involved shooting that was later deemed justified filed a red flag law order against the officer who was involved in the incident. While the order was unsuccessful and the woman was later charged with perjury, her case has been repeatedly delayed by the court despite its high profile.
Even the ACLU, not traditionally known as a great defender of gun rights, has gone on record numerous times in the past saying that red flag laws pose "a significant threat to civil liberties" as ex parte orders can be issued before gun owners have a chance to make their case. The group has also questioned, "the precedent it sets for the use of coercive measures against individuals not because they are alleged to have committed any crime, but because somebody believes they might, someday, commit one.”
Legal scholars point out that, as judges are only hearing one side of the case and being forced to rule on an order based on a slim standard of evidence, error rates on red flag law seizures are high. For example, they were pushing 31 percent in Connecticut and 29 percent in Indiana.
Further, when trying to mount a legal effort to get their Second Amendment rights out of limbo, recipients of such orders suddenly have to find a lawyer and pay often prohibitively expensive legal fees. They face that challenge with no notice about having been charged with any sort of crime. While a layperson would think such a thing is a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s ban on warrantless searches and seizures, red flag laws seem to shrug off those concerns.
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
I oppose the Democrat hope and change plan of destroying traditional American views, values, history, and laws to make room for the new Marxist world order. The new order requires Americans to tear down statutes, rename public properties and sports teams, military bases, etc., and to accept woke leftist dogmas demonizing the wealthy, whites, cops, and capitalism. I don't buy that Marxist 'redistribute the wealth' foolishness.why would anyone care who you consider to be "god fearing amerian patriots"? lol.
you're a lying coward, so that's probably a good thing you dont like them
WATCH: Biden says ‘there’s going to be a new world order’ and US must take lead | Washington Examiner 3-22-22
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Worse, forced interactions with armed police against someone already perceived to be under stress can be deadly. In 2018, law enforcement officers in Maryland fatally shot a 61-year-old man while attempting to serve a red flag order at 5 a.m. The man's family said afterward, "he wasn’t dangerous just strongly opinionated."
Boris Norris
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2022
- Messages
- 14,990
You said they grabbed guns. You are a liar and I stead of owning up you Continue to post more shit in a very poor defence trying to distance yourself.
thanks for the sermon, rev.
you keep confusing this with a religious forum. lol
you think that means a world government? lol.
it means biden wants the us to be in front of change, not behind it. duh. which is a good thing.
you're so stupid.
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
They shot the man dead and grabbed his guns. What part of that did you not understand?
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Not only Biden, but also Heinrich Herr George Soros, Herr Klaus Schlob, and hundreds of other leftist Marxist progressive bozos support the proposed anti-American new world order.
Klaus Schwab calls to form one-world government; 'Daniel’s Fourth Kingdom' - Israel365 News 4-4-22
Klaus Schwab calls to form one-world government; ‘Daniel’s Fourth Kingdom’
During a keynote speech on Wednesday, the opening day of the World Government Summit (WGS2022) in Dubai, the WEF’s executive chairman Klaus Schwab called for world leaders to unite to address global issues such as climate change, trade, and economic disruption. He emphasized that this one-world government must form as soon as possible.
Who cares about scwab ? Lol
Prove Biden supports a world government ly8ng *****
But you wontvas always
mark francis
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2021
- Messages
- 26,467
Monday, January 01, 2024
WATCH: Biden says ‘there’s going to be a new world order’ and US must take lead
by Heather Hamilton, Trending News Editor
March 22, 2022 09:35 AM
While speaking with a small group of business leaders from some of the largest U.S. energy, food, and manufacturing companies, President Joe Biden said there will be “a new world order” established.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What do world leaders mean by the term "New World Order?" Here is one opinion:
What is the New World Order? - WorldAtlas
What Is The New World Order?
The term New World Order signifies a movement of global activism by individuals, groups, and nations.
New World Order is a term used to define the period of the dramatic change in the world of politics. Although the term has been interpreted differently, it is basically related to the idea of global governance, particularly in the aspect of a collective effort to identify, diagnose, and tackle worldwide challenges that an individual nation or state cannot handle on its own. People are becoming politically active, politically aware, and politically interactive. Global activism against oppression and the need for cultural respect and economic freedom is gaining momentum worldwide. Nations are realizing the need to fight a common enemy together rather than individually.
Usage Of The Phrase “New World Order”
The well-known use of the term “new world order” was in connection with the Fourteen Points by Woodrow Wilson after the World War I and during the creation of the League of Nation. The World War I had highlighted the need to need to create a safer world for democracy. Wilson proposed a new world order which was to transcend the usual great power politics. He emphasized the need to collectively enhance security, democracy, and self-determination. However, the Americans refused to be part of the League of Nation, which Wilson viewed as key to new world order. The term was also used sparingly after the World War II, during the creation of the United Nations. It fell from use partly because of the failure of the League of Nations while others perceived it as a projection of the American dream.
The term “new world order” as was used during the post-Cold War had no definite meaning. It may have been redefined progressively in three different periods; by the Soviets, the US before Malta Conference, and after September 11, 1990. Initially, the new world order dealt exclusively with nuclear disarmament but was later expanded by Gorbachev to include the strengthening of the UN
Who Were Involved?
Gorbachev
The phrase new world order was first used in the press during the Russo-Indian talks on November 21, 1988, by Rajiv Gandhi while referring to the commitment by the USSR following the Declaration of Delhi. His description of new world order was that of non-violence and peaceful coexistence. However, the principle statement leading to the formation of the concept of new world order was given by Mikhail Gorbachev during his speech to the UN General Assembly on December 7, 1988. His speech included a list of ideas that would help form the new order, including strengthening the role of the UN and the active involvement of the member states. A month later, his speech was analyzed by the Times Magazine, giving possible implications. According to the article, the new world order meant a shift of resources from military to domestic needs that would lead to dwindling of security alliances such as NATO. The author of the article felt that the then US president, Bush, needed to counter Gorbachev’s ideas since he stood a chance of losing leadership to Gorbachev.
President George Bush
Gorbachev’s idea of a new order was considered consequential to the US and the leadership of Bush. Therefore, Bush crafted a strategy to challenge Gorbachev at the Malta Conference. During the conference, President Bush proposed that the new world order is established under the United Nations. He noted in a news conference that if countries of the world united and worked together then there will be international order and the world will be more peaceful than before. In an effort to strengthen the new order, Bush offered to include the Soviet troops in the forces that were liberating Kuwait. He placed the future the NWO to the US and the Soviet Union’s ability to counter Saddam Hussein’s aggression. On September 11, 1990, Bush while addressing the joint session of Congress, pointed out the commitment of the US to strengthen itself so that it could lead the world towards rule of law. He also highlighted the need for the Soviet-American partnership towards making the world safe for democracy.
Review Of The Past New World Order
The idea of NWO as was highlighted by Bush can be summarized into three major aspects; the offensive use of force, collective security, and great power cooperation. The three aspects came about as a result of domestic, personal, and global factors. The Gulf Crisis was seen as a major contributing factor to the development and implementation of the new world order. Before then, the concept of new order remained complex and unproven. The Gulf War was considered a test case for the UN’s credibility and a model for countering the aggressors. The US was to act in a way that the rest of the world would trust during the war and thus get the support of the UN. In “A World Transformed,” Scowcroft concludes that although the US has ability and resources to take care of its interests, it has taken on the responsibility to pursue the common good. During Bill Clinton’s presidency, the new world order became more prominent, with the Progressive Caucus openly promoting socialism.
Recent Usage
The phrase has been in use since its inception, especially in the political field. In 1994, Henry Kissinger claimed that a new world order was not possible without the US participation since it was the most significant component. The former UK Prime Minister, Tony Blair used the phrase in November 2000 and also in 2001 to 2003 while calling for a new world order. Gordon Brown, also former UK Prime Minister also called for a new world order in 2008 while on a tour to New Delhi. He also used the phase at the G20 Summit in 2009 in London.
Several other world leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, and his Georgian counterpart, Mikheil Saakashvili have also called for a new world order. Some scholars have also advanced their thesis on the declining global influence of the US and the rising of illiberal powers including China. Political analysts such as Leonid Grinin of Russia acknowledge the US will continue to play a critical role in the new world order.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Many Christians believe the one world government in the end times will be inspired and controlled by Satan.
Revelation 13
11 And I beheld another beast coming up out of the earth; and he had two horns like a lamb, and he spake as a dragon.
12 And he exerciseth all the power of the first beast before him, and causeth the earth and them which dwell therein to worship the first beast, whose deadly wound was healed.
13 And he doeth great wonders, so that he maketh fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men,
14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.
15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Attachments
Werbung:
thanks for "one opinion" which is meaningless. lol.
do you get paid by the word posting here?
Similar threads
